#Politely message me if you disagree | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

woso-dreamzzz · 4 months

Text

Flirts III

Mapi Leon x Reader x Ingrid Engen

Summary: You have doubts

You don't know when you start getting doubts.

You don't know why you start getting doubts either. There's no catalyst for it. There's no rhyme or reason.

Just, one day, when you're across the country working on a surgery, the thoughts come to mind.

Ingrid and Mapi just fit together. They have a push and pull that balances them so well. You can't help but wonder if you're ruining the balancing act.

You're the interloper here even if they were the ones that pursued you. Maybe you've made this into a bigger thing than they expected. Maybe they thought that they were just going to give you the best sex of your life and disappear into the sunset and you just got your claws into them and they were staying with you out of politeness.

Your thoughts aren't rational, you know this, but they still swirl in your mind when you return to Barcelona and break down in tears in your cousin's arms.

She looks more shocked and worried than the time you made her babysit your puppy.

"I love them," You choke out suddenly after several minutes of uncontrollable sobs," I love them so much."

"Mapi and Ingrid?" Patri asks," I don't see the issue here."

That just makes you cry harder. "I don't know if they love me back!"

"You're not making any sense," Patri says," Why wouldn't they love you back?"

"I don't know!" You snap. You're a bit annoyed that Patri's clearly not taking this as seriously as you'd like her to. "They're always together, at work, at home. I'm not around them as much! How could they possibly love me as much as I love them?!"

Patri grabs you by the arms and shakes you a bit. "You're overthinking, again. They love you even if they haven't said it yet. I know they do!"

"But how?!"

"Because I'm the smart one between us!"

You let out a little laugh as you wipe your eyes. "I think my degree in veterinary medicine would disagree with you there."

Even with Patri's reassurances, you still felt a little wary. But you pushed through it. Your cousin was many things but she wasn't a liar.

You definitely kept your distance a little bit though. You wait a few minutes to reply to messages, just to see if they'd take invitations back. You don't smother them in affection like you want to. You don't make the first move in anything.

"Are you coming to the match tomorrow?" Mapi asks one evening as you all sip wine on the terrace.

"Do you want me to?"

Ingrid sits up from where she was lazing around. She places her wine glass down on the table and captures your hands with hers. Her fingers gently rub over your knuckles.

"Why do you sound so unsure?" She asks," Hmm? What's going on?"

"Nothing's going on."

Her gaze turns cold and she pulls you to face her by your chin. "Don't lie to me," She says firmly," Or I'll have to remind you what happens to girls that do."

Your throat bobs at the reminder and you wiggle in your seat.

Mapi's moved closer to your other side, a hand resting on your thigh.

"What's going on?" She asks," You've been distant for days now. Even Patri's noticed it. She came to talk to us in training, did you know? If something's happened, you have to tell us or we can't help."

"Nothing's happened," You deny," Honest. I don't know...I just..."

"Just?"

"I love you," You declare suddenly, shocking even yourself with the conviction you say it," Both of you." The words hang in the air for a moment and you think this is it. It's gotten too real for them both. This is when they break up with you.

You squeeze your eyes tight.

Mapi moves behind you, her lips brushing up against the shell of your ear as she whispers," Good. We love you too, amor."

Ingrid's smirking when you open your eyes and she drags you in for a bruising kiss. It's sloppy as she slips her tongue into your mouth. When you pull away, you're panting.

"You're coming to the game, right?" Ingrid asks even though she already knows the answer.

You nod.

You end up in Ingrid's jersey for the match. Partly because it was the first one you saw that morning and partly because you knew that it made Mapi absolutely feral.

You wouldn't ever say that you understood football no matter how many times Patri tried to explain it to you but you could admit that you liked the way it made your girlfriends all flushed and sweaty by the end of the ninety minutes.

Ingrid's arms wrap easily around your waist as she helps you jump the barrier. She brings you into a kiss that's bordering the line of indecent in public and you barely have time to react before your head is turned and Mapi's kissing you too.

Her hand tugs on your shirt. "You're wearing Ingrid's jersey," She groans against your lips," God, amor, what are you doing to me?"

"You like?" You tease.

"I love."

Mapi pulls you for another kiss and this one is definitely not fit for the public as Ingrid rests easily on your back, your hips in an iron grip by her hands.

"You've gotten her riled up," Ingrid scolds though her tone is light and joking," We'll have to get out of her quickly before she make a scene."

"You're already making a scene," Pina complains from where she's standing nearby with Patri.

"Stop tonguing my cousin!" Patri says," It's disgusting! I told you not to do that where I could see it."

Mapi rolls her eyes. "And I told you to stop trying to police our relationship. You're not as intimidating as you think you are, amiga."

"I am so intimidating!"

"Patri," You laugh," I once saw you slip over an empty coke can and land in a bin. You're the least intimidating person I know."

She grumbles before pointing warning fingers at both of your girlfriends and storming off, pulling a laughing Pina in tow.

"She's so annoying," Mapi complains and you swat her.

"Hey, that's still my cousin. Be nice."

"She's not being nice to us!"

"Girls," Ingrid laughs," Come on. Let's get home." She smirks. "I think that we can spend our time doing something apart from arguing about Patri."

#woso x reader #mapi leon x reader #mapi leon #ingrid engen x reader #ingrid engen #woso community #woso fanfics #woso imagine #woso

617 notes · View notes

phoenixyfriend · 3 months

Text

How to Call Your Reps About Gaza

I make a lot of posts telling you to call your reps! Anyway, here's the overall shape of how to argue to them.

Disclaimer: I am not in politics. I do not have experience as a staffer. I am just someone who cares a lot about where things are going, and wants to help. Also, this is specific to the US, because that's where I'm based. Hopefully, people with expertise can add more suggestions on.

Find your elected officials.

My Ko-fi: this took me two days to write up, so uh. If you've got a few dollars, send them my way so I can keep doing this sort of thing, and maybe move out of my parents' house sooner.

General tips:

Be polite, or at least civil. Do not swear or shout at whoever answers the phone. This will quite possibly get your number blocked. Fifty civil calls over the course of several months will do more than one where you shout. You can be frosty, you can say you are disappointed, you can say you find the actions of your reps to be reprehensible or morally bankrupt, sure. But keep calm and aim criticism at the rep, not the staffer.

Keep it short. The staffers who answer call centers are busy. They usually start trying to hurry me off after about two minutes. I've yet to manage a call longer than four or five minutes. Pick one or two topics for the day, and focus on those. Cycle through them every time you call. Stick to just one from day to day if it's a large, ongoing issue like Gaza.

Plan for voicemail. I get voicemail more often than not. My House rep usually has a staffer free, but the Senators are almost always voicemail. This will give you a minute and a half max. Be ready to get your point squeezed into that.

Only call your representatives. The important, powerful word here is "constituent." You will be ignored or even counted against if you are from a different district or state. The first thing you start with is your name and address. A staffer will ask for the information they need. On voicemail, leave your full name, your city and state, and zip code before you go into your message. Do not lie, either. They look these things up in the system when you call. I'm not sure how--I think maybe they have access to a database of registered voters--but every time I call, they ask for my last name and address and at some point say, 'oh, yep, I've got you right here,' which indicates a database of some sort.

Research at least a little bit about their opinions. If they already agree with you, then it's much easier to leave a quick "I support you and want you to know that" to combat anyone who's arguing from the other side. If they don't, then you're best off finding out what specific issue they have so you can know the best kind of comment to leave.

Look up specific bills or arguments. I get daily emails from GovTrack about bills that are on this week's docket or have been voted on in the past day. IDK about anyone else, but being able to say that I disagree specifically with HR 815 or something makes me feel powerful, and possibly like I will be taken more seriously. Sometimes you can start with articles like this one, which include links to specific bills on the official congress website.

Email after if you can. Reportedly less effective, and takes longer, but you are more likely to get a written (canned) response, and it reinforces whatever you called about.

Basic structure of a call, at least as I've been doing it:

"Hi, my name is ____ ____, and I am a constituent from [city, state], [zip]. I am calling to express my opinion on [topic]. I am concerned about [short argument with a clear impact on the topic]. I ask that you support [measure or fellow congress member]/vote [yay/nay on specific legislature]. Thank you for your time, and I hope you keep my opinion in mind."

For this post, the topic can be stated as the war in Gaza, military funding for Israel, or unrest in the Middle East, depending on which you think your elected official will respond to best. That said, the structure should work for whatever your call is about.

Arguments to use against your elected official... or your on-the-fence cousin:

I'll be honest, some of these are not going to do much against your representative. They know the arguments, and have been going over them with each other for months. You just need to have one locked and loaded that they consider relevant instead of a nonstarter, in order to back up your opinion as 'founded' instead of 'nonsense, can be swayed with a good marketing campaign.'

I'll include explanations if I don't think something is self-evident (or needs more evidence to tell your cousin), but in most of them I'll provide some suggested verbiage that you can tweak as needed, and for a few of them, that's really enough.

THESE ARE FOR THE TOPIC OF CONCERN, ONLY. You still need to end each one with "I ask that the [official] votes to [action]" at the end. Give them something actionable (example from Feb. 13th). My go-tos right now:

Both chambers: Reinstate funding for UNRWA

Both chambers: Place mandatory restrictions on any aid to Israel, with contractual threats to cut funding if Netanyahu and his government continue to disregard civilian life

Senate: Put support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed (S.R. 504) (Tabled by the Senate on 1/16, but it is being brought back in as conditions continue to escalate)

House: Put support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it.

House: Put support behind H.R. 786, introduced by Rep. Cori Bush, calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

What Not to Say

"There is no threat to Israel." I've talked about this elsewhere, but the short version is that this will be basically laughed out as you not knowing what you're talking about.

Anything generically antisemitic. (I mean, it might work on some of the white supremacists, but do you really want to encourage that thinking? No, so don't do it.)

Facts that you "heard somewhere" but cannot find a reliable source for. If it's being reported by the New York Times, NPR, or the BBC, it's probably trustworthy by government standards. If it's not a super common statistic, cite the journal you got it from by name. Remember, you aren't arguing to tumblr mutuals. You are arguing to your elected official or your 'I don't really pay attention' cousin. When it comes to this, big name news sources are better.

Unrealistic demands for complete isolationism, permanently abandoning Israel to its own devices, supporting Hamas, etc. Again, you will not be taken seriously. Pick an argument they might actually listen to, and use it to press them towards a possible solution. You want them to believe that if they adjust their position, they will be doing the will of most of their constituents, and thus more likely to get reelected.

The Ethics Argument

Third-party reporting has stated that that nearly 29,000 Gazans are dead since Oct. 7th, as of 2/18/24. The vast majority of those are civilians, and over half are children. Palestinians in Gaza are facing an acute hunger crisis threatening to become a full-blown famine.

The International Court of Justice has found that there is credible reason to believe that the state of Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.

This does not mean that every single Israeli is complicit. It does mean that the government, particularly Netanyahu and his associates, has been reprimanded by a large, diverse coalition of countries, and has consistently refused to listen to that court since.

This argument will possibly work on your cousin. Less likely to work on your elected official. They already know the numbers. I just wanted to get it out of the way first.

The Re-Election Argument: Michigan vs New York

Meanwhile, this is possibly the most effective. Again, this is not an argument of ethics. This is an argument of "how can I make my elected official do what I want." We do not use only the purest moral argument. We use what works.

What to say to your elected official: Michigan, as a swing state, was won by democrats on the power of the Arab-American vote in the 2020 election. We (either party) are at risk of losing Michigan due to the current Congressional approach to the Gaza conflict, as that demographic is now polling as likely to abstain from voting entirely. The risk of losing several congressional districts due to the Jewish vote is a real one, but the risk of losing the the executive branch is greater, especially after what we saw with Suozzi. Supporting Palestine might lose us parts of New York, but supporting Israel will lose us Michigan.

Explanation: Something that has been taking up a lot of time and space in the election coverage is the situation in Michigan, and more recently, there has been attention paid to the special election of New York's third district, AKA the "who gets to replace disgraced George Santos" competition.

Michigan is traditionally a swing state. While 2.1% doesn't sound like a lot, that is some 211k-278k people (depending on your source), and while not all of them can vote... Michigan was won by about 154k. Arab-Americans are not the only relevant demographic, but they sure are an important one, and they are vocally opposed to the situation. Approval has dropped from 59% to 17%. From that same article:

As Axios notes, Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 154,000 votes, but there are at least 278,000 Arab Americans in Michigan. Biden took Arizona, a state with an Arab American population of 60,000, by only 10,500 votes. In Georgia, Biden prevailed with a margin of 11,800 voters, in a state that has an Arab American population of 57,000.

Democrats cannot afford to lose these states. Pressure your congresspeople about that, especially if you live in one of those states. I assume most Arab-Americans in said states are already calling every day; the rest of you can join in.

Meanwhile, most Jews (considered the most pro-Israel demographic by strategists) in America are concentrated in a very small number of electoral districts. Of the twenty most-Jewish, ten are in New York, which is why I put it up in the section header.

One of those districts was won by a Republican in 2022: George Santos, New York's third congressional district. Following his scandals and ousting, the seat was up for a special election, and the two candidates were Tom Suozzi, a democrat who held the seat previously (he decided to run for governor, and lost), and Mazi Pilip, a Nassau county legislator who was of Ethiopian Jewish background and had been in the IDF. She ran on a campaign that leaned strongly pro-Israel and anti-immigration, and when Suozzi won, she interrupted his victory speech to accuse him of supporting a genocide against Israel due to his rather centrist, rather milquetoast stance on the conflict during his election campaign.

Now, Suozzi's win probably had more to do with Pilip being anti-choice than her pro-Israel arguments, but he still won.

Democrats can better risk possibly losing a few seats in NY than definitely losing three swing states.

"But I don't want Dems to win their districts after what they've been--" Nope. Listen to me. Surveys indicate that Republicans are on average more pro-Israel, because Trump and Netanyahu are buddy-buddy, and we do not have a viable third option.

Also, again, this is about convincing Dems to be better. "If you do not vote to put restrictions on funding to Israel, I will not vote for you in November" is a lot more powerful than "I will not vote for you either way, because of what you've been doing, but you should do what I say anyway."

The Re-Election Argument: Risk of Escalation

So, that thing I said about Trump and Netanyahu?

Yeah, so, while Biden is giving Israel military aid while cautioning them to slow down and be careful, Trump is... complicated, but suffice to say he's much closer to Netanyahu on a personal level than Biden is. Biden's relation with Netanyahu is reportedly pretty frosty, while Trump's is based on relations through the Kushners.

Just from wikipedia:

Netanyahu made his closeness to Donald Trump, a personal friend since the 1980s, central to his political appeal in Israel from 2016.[21] During Trump's presidency, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states.

Trump's been more all-over-the-place recently, badmouthing Netanyahu for being what Trump perceives as a loser, which complicates understanding what his approach is. It's kind of incoherent right now.

Given Trump's general history of being pro-Israel, though, and the attempts by House Republicans to push through a bill of unconditional funding for Israel. It failed, but notable is that the more recent bill passed in part because it was paired with aid for Ukraine and Taiwan (something Dems are much more invested in having happen).

What to say to your elected official: If Trump is reelected due to his current appearance of being more critical of Netanyahu, there is evidence from his presidency to indicate that he will support Israel much less critically if elected. While he claims to want to settle the Middle East, it seems incredibly likely that he will worsen the situation for Palestinians, and ramp up retaliatory strikes to groups like the Houthis in a manner that will impact non-military parties, igniting tensions that are already tenuous.

The Disrespect/Wild Card Argument

This particular argument is best used against the Very Patriotic Politicians who are more concerned with the US's image and Being The Alpha Nation than with other things. Basically, this might work on Republicans.

This isn't really something I believe in, as a matter of foreign policy, buuuut it might work on your rep, so. Consider it!

What to say to your elected official: With Israel's recent actions in ignoring Biden, blocking US-sent aid like those flour trucks that got stopped at the Rafah border because they'd be distributed by UNWA, and generally Disrespecting The USA and Being Unpredictable is not only making the US look bad for being unable to wrangle a smaller country, but also making it so we are less able to wrangle other countries in the future, because Israel cannot be predicted and might set someone off.

The Europe and Reputation Argument

What to say to your elected official: The United States is losing credibility as a world power known for its military and ability to manage international disputes on behalf of the UN, because it is seemingly unable to influence Israel, and losing credibility as an upstanding moral state that is not doing foreign coups and banana republics anymore, as it appears to be tacitly supporting Israel's ICJ-labelled genocide, which is a really bad look with the other Western Powers.

I'm not entirely sure who this might work on, but there's gotta be at least a few politicians who are really concerned about America's image, more than about actually doing the right thing. Figure out if your politician is one of them.

If necessary, you can bring up how Trump is threatening to pull US support for NATO if Russia attacks someone.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Iran-backed Militias

What to say to your elected official: I'm concerned that the continued support of Israel, and thus the funding of their actions in Gaza, will increase the instability of Iran-backed militias, as we have already seen with the Houthis and Hezbollah. Entire Muslim-majority nations are showing increased displeasure not only with Israel, but with the US by extension. We cannot afford another war in the Middle East when we haven't yet pulled all our troops from the last one, not with the recent and recurring economic recessions. Any situation would also very likely be complicated or inflamed by the growing tensions among Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia regarding Red Sea access as well.

Use this on the ones that claim to be pro-military or pro-veteran. See what they said about HR 815 before the foreign military funding amendment was added.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Egypt

What to say to your elected official: Egypt's government has been unstable since the Arab Spring, and even now the military government is incredibly unpopular. With that existing instability, the addition of economic strain from the reduced usage of the Suez canal, the international disputes occurring because they're the main throughway for aid into Gaza, and the threat of a sudden influx of nearly one and a half million Palestinian refugees should Israel continue to push south... Egypt is looking at a possible near-collapse as we've seen in nearby nations suffering similar instabilities.

Explanation: It took several years for Egypt to really start recovering from the revolts in 2013, and it has applied for four IMF loans in recent years. The current government is unpopular to such a degree that they are looking to build an entire new capital from scratch in the middle of the desert so that they're less open to the risk of civilian uprisings; one of the primary causes for civilian dissatisfaction is economic issues.

Due to Houthi attacks at the Bab al-Mandab Strait, traffic through the Suez canal is down massively, and since the canal "represents almost 5% of the GNP and 10% of GDP and is one of Egypt’s most important sources of hard currency." (src) Various sources are reporting that trade through the canal is down 40-50%, which is putting more strain on the already unstable economic and political situation.

Finally, Egypt's population is about 110 million, but the governorate that shares a border with Israel and Gaza, North Sinai, has a population of barely 500,000. A push of one and a half million starving, injured people will, very suddenly, nearly quadruple the population of the governorate, and require extreme aid response from Egypt's government to keep alive and prevent a larger crisis in North Sinai and neighboring governorates.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Normalized Relations

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned that Israel's continued attack on Gaza is jeopardizing any chance of normalized relations with the Arab states in the future. American has put a lot of work into trying to get these various countries to normalize with Israel, and our funding of the current attacks on Gaza are sabotaging all that effort.

This one can be combined with the Iran-Backed Militias argument: Israel, in pursuit of revenge against Hamas, is setting itself up to be in more danger long-term, rather than less.

The International Trade Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned about how the war in Gaza is impacting international trade and shipping costs. With the Suez Canal down to half its usual capacity and the Panama Canal raising costs and dropping capacity in response to the water restrictions, along with rising fuel costs in Europe and Asia, global trade is incredibly strained. We are being relegated to the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, and the Malacca strait for much of intercontinental trade, and the macroeconomic projections are looking very bad for America.

The Domestic Economics Argument

What to say to your elected official: Many of the plans for Israeli military funding cause damage to other parts of the budget. For instance, a recent plan put forward by the Republicans of the House suggested IRS cuts in order to move that money, a plan which would impact the US budget negatively in the long term; we need those 14 billion being spent domestically, not supporting an overreaction/possible genocide in Gaza.

Explanation: In general, pick something receiving budget cuts that your congressperson will care about. I care about IRS funding, and saw it mentioned as a target in an article, so that's what I've got in my suggested verbiage up there.

The fewer people that are working for the IRS, the more they focus on auditing poor people (simple, easy taxes) and the less they can effectively audit rich people (complicated, time-consuming taxes), which means rich people are more likely to get away with evading millions or even billions in taxation. So yeah, you want more funding in the IRS if you are poor. They are already auditing you. You want them to audit the big guys.

The Russia and China Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am worried that the current focus on funding Israel without restriction is causing us to lose sight of the international threat posed by Russia and China. Russia is actively invading Ukraine, which continues to put massive strain on the European economy with regards to oil prices, especially with the Suez situation, and China has been testing missiles near Taiwan, and thus testing US responsiveness to those threats, for months now. We cannot afford to support an internationally unpopular war if we want to remain ready for Russia and China.

This is less likely to work on Republicans, since Trump is friendly with Russia, but hey, give it a shot if they're one of the ones who aren't fully in his camp.

EDIT 2/22/24: I'm a bit unsure of this tactic, but I'm putting it out there with hopes that someone with more political experience can offer feedback:

"Congress, and the US government in general, has promised to sanction Russia for the alleged assassination of one man within a week of the suspicious death, after five months of refusing to enact even slight consequences on Israel for the deaths of nearly thirty thousand, half of which are children. This is ethically questionable at best, but for the interests of elected officials, it is a very bad look. The mismatch shows a massive bias by the American government in regards to Israel's ongoing mass murder, with over two million facing famine as a result of Israel's aid blocking, and America's reputation on the world stage, as well as individual politicians' reputations domestically with constituents, is plummeting."

-------------------------------------

Finally, my ko-fi again. I spent a long time on this and I'd like to move out of my parents' house sooner rather than later. If you appreciate my time and effort, please feel free to donate a couple bucks.

562 notes · View notes

becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys · 6 months

Text

Clownfall: Endgame - Hello December

I am late writing and posting this, because it's nearly the end of term and I am mega busy (I have leave in two days and I am counting the hours...) BUT some stuff happened last week so let's dig in!

Also quick note before we do: I would like to politely request that you stop tagging this with "England" or "English politics". This is about British politics, not just England, and I am not English. Please do not erase me it takes SO LONG to write these thank you all and goodnight anyway ON WITH THE SHOW

Saturday, 25 November

12.01am

We begin our tale with Oliver Wright of the Times, who reports that … no hang on, wait, I've fucked it, okay. To understand this story, you first need to understand Simon Case.

Simon Case is a civil servant, and current Cabinet Secretary and head of UK Civil Service

He was the highest ranking public official implicated in the Partygate scandal, though he didn’t resign nor was he fined

In the Telegraph’s published WhatsApp messages from Partygate in which Tories all chatted to each other (seriously HOW do those keep getting leaked), Case made fun of holidaymakers stuck in hotel rooms by Covid regulations

In the same messages he also described some opposition to Covid restrictions as “pure Conservative ideology”, which is. An Own Goal

He also described BlowJo as a “nationally distrusted figure” whose isolation rules the public were unlikely to follow, which is true but also the Quiet Part

This information is from Wikipedia, which I’m openly admitting here, so my esteemed colleague hbomberguy can stand down.

Why am I mentioning him! Well. Case was supposed to give evidence to the Covid inquiry in October this year, but didn’t because of medical leave (ironically). In November, he still wasn’t back (should have isolated better, eh, Si), and the inquiry was given private medical information relating to Case (presumably evidence that he’s not just faking it so he doesn't have to be shouted at by angry judges and MPs and that).

So! On Saturday the 25th, eighteen and a half hours before Beep the Meep’s spectacular TV debut, Oliver Wright of the Times reports that Simon Case – uh, before his medical leave - advised Prime Minister Rishi Sunak that he should authorise pre-election talks between the civil service and Labour. Sunak - I suspect obviously - ignored this suggestion, in case it signalled that an election is now imminent.

According to Wright, it’s now questionable whether Case will ever return to his role.

Shame.

Monday, 27 November

2.44pm

House of Commons time! Let's see what our elected representatives are up to.

Tory MP Jill Mortimer says international treaties written 70 years ago "are not fit for purpose" to tackle illegal immigration, so we need to return to the "Deport the browns to Rwanda" plan. Ugh.

2.50pm

The following was reported by Matt Dathan of the Times, so CALL OFF YOUR DOGS hbomberguy.

James Cleverly – the newest Home Secretary, chappie who described another MPs constituency as a shithole in the House of Commons in his second week on the job – says the Rwanda policy isn’t the “be all and end all”.

Robert Jenrick – the Minister of State for Immigration – says the policy is an "extremely important component" of the government's small boats policy.

So! James Cleverly and Robert Jenrick disagree on this matter! Exciting! Hey, Tumblrs, just for fun...

Let’s remember those two names.

2.58pm

Robert Jenrick says boat crossings have been reduced by more than a third in the last year, but that numbers are still unacceptably high.

FUN SELF-STUDY ACTIVITY: Take a moment to form an opinion of Robert Jenrick! It’ll be worth it.

Here is some information to get you started: Jenrick this year ordered some lovely murals of cartoon characters (Mickey Mouse, Tom and Jerry, etc) to be painted over at a children’s asylum centre in Kent. His explicit reason is because he thought they were "too welcoming" for lone refugee children arriving in the UK, and such children should not feel welcome here.

Have you formed your opinion yet? Then I'll continue.

8.13pm

Rishi Sunak cancels a meeting with the Greek Prime Minister in a row over the Elgin Marbles.

Uh, there's a lot going on here - this is about the stolen marble frescoes that should be in the Parthenon in Athens, that gross British thief Lord Elgin stole decades ago and plonked into the British Museum. Greece has been asking for them back ever since, but a small handful of old white men who are in charge of the British Museum don't want to give them back and keep stating that Greece wouldn't look after them properly, which is a hell of a claim given that Elgin literally broke one when he nicked them, and also, he fucking stole them. Anyway, it turns out to the surprise of no one that Sunak also doesn't think we should give them back, and so when the matter was raised in an Anglo-Greek meeting recently Sunak literally walked out of it, even though the meeting was actually about something else.

So HERE HE IS refusing to do any diplomacy with Greece now i.e. his actual fucking job.

This is a big deal for the immigration-obsessed though! According to a Labour source, Greece is an essential ally for any agreement on illegal migration.

And even the Prime Minister’s supporters think he’s got this one wrong.

Wednesday, 29 November

Prime Minister’s Questions!

This is the (televised) point in the week where the PM has to appear in the Commons and be grilled by anyone who wants to put the boot in about anything at all. Keir Starmer decides today is the day to do some actual opposition, pushes Sunak on several fronts, and pretty much everyone reckons this is Starmer’s best ever performance at PMQs. People especially enjoy Starmer calling Rishi the “man with the reverse Midas touch”.

This is not, strictly speaking, actually funny. But it's political humour, which is like office humour. It doesn't actually have to be.

12.22pm

A former cabinet member tells the press that the Greek government are furious at Sunak’s snub. Uh oh!

Thursday, 30 November

Disgraced former Secretary of State for Health and all round human 1950s meat blancmange Matt Hancock talks to the Covid inquiry today. Specifically, to explain why he, the then-Secretary of State for Health, led the government so badly in the pandemic that we developed the second highest death rate in the world. To hear him tell it, he was an underdog hero doing his best to fight a toxic culture at Whitehall to get the pandemic handled responsibly.

The only problem with this is that it is contradicted by everyone else’s accounts.

He is called a “proven liar” who was “unfit for the job” by proven liar and unfit for his job Dominic Cummings. Former civil servant Helen MacNamara says Hancock displayed “nuclear levels” of overconfidence and said lots of things that later turned out to be untrue. Sadly for HandCock, he said these things to cameras that were recording him onto the telly, and so we do actually know.

Monday, 4 December

Keir Starmer talked about the economy today. He won’t rule out cutting public services, and it looks like he’s trying to tell disenfranchised Tory voters to jump ship to Labour.

Hope it’s a bluff! Very depressing if he’s serious. This is nowhere near as much fun as Tories being humiliated.

21.47pm

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!

(This is from the Mirror, you can’t destory me on your YouTube.)

Labour MP Diana Johnson proposes an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to compensate thousands of patients infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 70s and 80s, to the tune of billions of pounds.

And it WON! Narrowly – 246 votes to 242. A huge deal, because that includes 23 Tory backbenchers. That is very bad for Rishi Sunak. He he he.

Tory MP Edward Argar had tried to sort this in adance, by saying the government would provide their own similar amendment to the bill. Basically, he realised this was a controversial bill for the party, and wanted to present a version that could be a Tory victory rather than a Labour victory and Tory humiliation.

Didn’t work.

And neither did a THREE LINE WHIP for Tory MPs to vote against the Labour plan?!?? YES KIDS YOU READ THAT RIGHT Sunak didn't want people infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 70s and 80s to receive compensation in case it made him look bad, so he imposed a three line whip to force Tories to vote against it.

And 23 of them rebelled.

And now he looks even worse.

Lol.

Tuesday, 5 December

Have you done your homework, Tumblrs? Have you remembered those names? Have you formed an opinion?

7.38am

Home Office minister and children's cartoon hater Robert Jenrick is interviewed on Sky News. It’s ugly stuff. He refers to small boats “[breaking] in” to the UK. He insists asylum seekers WILL start being deported to Rwanda before the next General Election. And generally does big talk about cutting immigration.

What a hero.

1.27pm

James Cleverly is in Rwandan capital Kigali, as the UK signs a new treaty designed to help score the Supreme Court’s approval for the Rwanda plan.

1.40pm

So!

Cleverly’s doing pretty much what he said he’d do. He’s trying to legislate to make the Rwanda plan safer, rather than try to disapply human rights treaties. This, of course, is the Sensible Plan, if your plan is still to get people killed, but you want it to actually succeed.

But former Home Secretary Cruella Braverman is driving a load of Tories to push to disapply human rights obligations – and she’s joined in this by Robert Jenrick!!!!

That’s RIGHT! Hope you remembered his name, because now he’s a VILLAIN! Or, well, more of one, and in a more immediate way. After disagreeing with Cleverly in the commons on 27 November, he’s joined Team Suella. Tonight he’ll be part of a meeting between three different right-wing groupings...

1.46pm

The new treaty guarantees that, if these plans go ahead, asylum seekers won’t be returned to countries where their lives or freedom are threatened, and creates a requirement for an independent monitoring committee.

This treaty would be great if we lived in a world where the Supreme Court trusted the Rwandan government to honour treaty obligations. But we live in the world where NOT having this trust was part of the reason the Supreme Court ruled the plans unlawful.

Even if this wasn’t the case, we still need new legislation, and that’ll be way more controversial than this new treaty. The legislation was said to be ready by Thursday, which is a very short turnaround that only a lunatic would believe, but in a SHOCK DISAPPOINTING U-TURN the government now refuses to commit to this.

In any case...

This is causing cracks in the Tory party.

10.33pm

The Parliament's Christmas tree lights are turned on!

It goes as well as anything else in Parliament:

youtube

A visual representation of the Tory Party schism.

Wednesday, 6 December

8.21am

Boris Johnson arrives at the covid inquiry. He will be questioned for two days.

He he he

10.26am

Johnson is asked why around 5,000 WhatsApp messages were lost on his phone from January to June 2020.

Steffan made this brilliant meme. Please do not grass me up to hbomberman.

11.33am

It’s clear by now that Johnson wasn’t alert to the danger of covid by February 2020. Johnson says it wasn’t declared a pandemic by WTO yet, and he wasn’t asked about it in PMQs. Gosh! What a good point, maybe!

Until the KC points out a troubling fact: “You were the Prime Minister.”

Ah. Yes. PMQs are irrelevant, you see – the Prime Minister is allowed information that the opposition aren’t.

And, indeed, he probably would have had, if he'd actually attended the five Cobra meetings about it that would have briefed him on it just as the virus was being discovered.

12.49pm

2.24pm

I’m skipping most of this stuff, since it’s normal lies and non-specific apologies from BJ.

But this one’s interesting. Matt HandCock claimed he told Johnson on 13 March to call a lockdown. There’s no written evidence of this happening. Johnson outright contradicts it.

Lol

5.43pm

Cruella Braverman rejects Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It fails the five tests she claimed his bill would need to pass.

These are tests she made up and published in a newspaper, I should stress, like they don't exist and she is not an authority. This is a bit like if I marched into your house, dear reader, and went "You are not allowed to celebrate the holidays this year because I personally said you have to pass my tests first and you haven't", and I'm pretty sure if I tried that you would drop me in a bin and laugh at me.

But, she has many supporters on the Tory right...

5.48pm

The Sun’s political correspondent says that if the Lords try to block emergency legislation, some Tory MPs reckon Sunak should call an election, fighting on Rwanda.

I desperately want this. I DESPERATELY want this. They’ll lose that election so badly. SO badly. God, likes charge reblogs cast.

6.53pm

The villain Robert Jenrick … RESIGNS!

Oh no! This is not good news if you’re the Prime Minister.

Fucking fantastic for the rest of us, though

7.26pm

Jenrick publishes his resignation letter on Twitter. It’s two pages long, claiming the PM’s Rwanda plan basically won’t work.

Jenrick’s not wrong about that, but I speak as someone who doesn’t want any version of the Rwanda plan – not the monstrous Sunak one, and certainly not the hypermonstrous Braverman one. Good. Thanks for confirming, Darth Bell-end.

8.31pm

I enjoyed this tweet.

8.52pm

Sunak writes back to Jenrick, claiming the new plan WILL work.

Which is not normally what happens?!? Normally they yell about their current madness in a letter, publish it on Twitter because no one else cares or will agree, and get roundly ignored. But, desperate times! Here, Sunak’s challenge is to try to win over the Tories who don’t believe in his ability to deliver the plan. It’s a big ask.

So what are we left with?

10.37pm

A senior figure on the Tory right is asked whether their side will kill Sunak’s bill.

And they’re not sure! If it’s the only offer on the table, it seems sensible to vote for it.

BUT the right wing of the Tories aren’t famously very sensible. They’ll probably try and add amendments at the very least, but it’s genuinely possible they’ll reject it out of spite, because they are LUNATICS. Or as a political move to weaken Sunak.

And that's what you missed in the Tory Civil War!

(Up to last week)

#politik #clownfall: endgame

495 notes · View notes

txttletale · 2 months

Note

can you elaborate on the reasons ? what criticisms do you disagree with?

criticisms i disagree with:

"they character assassinated jane" amiguita there was no character to assisnate.

"they character assassinated dirk" dirk is at his most interesting and likeable ever and is just about the only redeeming thing about these

"they were just written to spite the fans" if true tht would have been Epic, and Based. but they very obviously werent

"its too violent and sexual for cheap shock humour" did you. read homestuck, the web comic? what were you Expecting... also like it or not the sexual content isnt just random or gratuitous it is obviously trying to be a conclusion to the whoel coming-of-age theme of homestuck as a work.

"so-and-so is out of character" homestuck characters are malleable little dolls that can be rearranged to suit the narrative at a whim. this is true about all fictional characters ofc but it is like explicitly textually metaphysically true in homestuck

my criticisms:

the heavy-handed political messaging is fucking tedious and awful and so profoundly of its time in a bad way. its clearly a reaction to trump but it doesnt have anything interesting to say about him or fascism or racism or anything, really, except, um. Cheeto in the white house?. the whole Evil Jane plot is too stupid and contrived for the sake of the satire to take seriously but also its awful satire written by liberals who think fascism as invented in 2016 by the orange man

god can we fucking talk about how fucking embarassing the obama shit is. jesus fucking christ. for a start it's a callback to a running jhoke in homestuck that is straight up just super racist. and they decide to pivot from the joke being 'its funny that theres a black president', which is good, but they pivot it to 'obama seems so heroic and magical now that we're stuck with the Orange Man', which, admittedly, is better than Being Racist, but also sucks shit. he killed people amiguitas.

'post-canon' is cheap bullshit. like, the work makes a big deal about tryng to talk about What Canon Is, without ever acknowledging the concept of, like, IP law. claiming to just be a non-canon continuation like any other when it's made by people with the Official Exclusive Legal Rights just feels hollow and detooths any liberatory/deconstructive potential there. unironically my opinion of it would go up like tenfold if it had been actually published in AO3 instead of just joking about it.

in general i think that all of the attempt to deconstruct fiction or storytelling is rooted in a really weird and flawed model of storytelling. a lot of it seems to be taking an extremely long route to writing something bad on purpose and then saying 'see, if you wrote something like this, it would be bad'. Okay. i like deconstructive collapsing narrative shit in e.g. if on a winter's night a traveller because i think calvino has trenchant and interesting insights about literature and storytelling. i do think hussie also has those but they essentially dropped and explored all of them in homestuck and the epilogues just seem like an attempt to connect ohomstuck's disparate and contradictory approaches to Narrative into one overarching schemata and then crtiique that schemata, which i think is a doomed project that results in little of interest to me.

#ask #homestuck

191 notes · View notes

echo-and-dust · 3 months

Text

now that my brain has somewhat unscrambled itself i have gotten most of my thoughts in order about season 3.

and the first thing i will say is: i loved it.

while it was gutwrenching and polarizing in some ways and i feel that i am entitled to financial compensation for what its done to my mental health, i loved this season for pretty much almost everything it did.

i cannot fault people for having issues with much of the characterization and plot choices made—that’s been the trend during the entire run of the show after all, and imo it’s a testament to the phenomenal way it generates nuance—but i wanted to share my feelings on the recurring opinions i’ve seen about some of these things.

first, i do not blame simon at all for the things he said in the final scene. he’s a child who has been receiving endless verbal and physical harassment on top of all the trauma he is still trying to heal from. he just watched his boyfriend lash out in anger and hurt—while not at him, but it must’ve been a close resemblance of how he might’ve seen micke act. at least, that's what i thought, though i've seen others say otherwise.

and yes, wille is not micke, but just because wille’s source of outbursts is different from micke’s doesn’t mean simon is wrong in drawing similarities. at least he's finally getting a true glimpse into what wille has had to deal with. i've honestly grown to like that they didn't have simon immediately comfort him though; wille's mental illness is not his fault, but it is his responsibility, and instead of pushing a message of unhealthy co-dependence, the show has simon be honest: "but i see that everything hurts you and that hurts me too." and to me, that's so important.

plus, it doesn't make their love any less genuine. wille is a victim of the circumstances; he is not evil, and he is not undeserving of simon. he just has a lot of growing and healing to do, a lot of unlearning and exposure therapy because he's still blinded by privilege even when he tries not to be.

speaking of, i have so many thoughts about wille that i feel like i need to save for its own separate post, but to sum them up: i'll still defend him with my life, and he needs to get the fuck away from that institution.

also, the fact that the responsibility of controlling simon's media decisions was placed solely on wille confused me at first like—why wouldn't they get a professional to give him proper media training?

then i realized, this could be the royal court's way of sabotaging their relationship. they knew that making wille the one to tell simon what he can and cannot say or post would create distance and animosity between them. despite the ramifications of simon's behavior on social media, it seems they still thought it best to have his boyfriend be the one to try to mold him into the system. because they knew that's how they could get rid of him. in conclusion, fuck the royal court (we been knew but still).

one of the standouts this season was their transparency regarding the show's politics. it not only works well with the show's arc (wilmon is public, everything's out in the open now and there's nothing to hide), but also it felt necessary at a time where censorship has been rapidly gaining momentum. it felt so refreshing for these characters to talk so openly about racial discrimination and queerphobia and class disparities, forcing both character and viewer to acknowledge that they exist and you should feel uncomfortable about it.

i don't think i can add much more to what was already said about it—most of the fandom is more eloquent and observant than i am anyway—i just wanted to reinforce how important this season is to myself and the story even with how controversial it is to fans right now. a lot of people may disagree with me and that's fine.

#young royals #wilmon #simon eriksson #prince wilhelm #yr spoilers #yr s3 spoilers #ad speaks #i don't know how they're going to tie everything together in under an hour but so far this season is strong enough for me to like it despit #what ending we receive #and i know i'm in the minority in that sense but i've been spending most of the hiatus trying to keep myself from setting expecations #so i haven't really been let down too much #i really don't want to let this show go though :'(#forever my heart #yr season 3 #young royals season 3

162 notes · View notes

the-cat-and-the-birdie · 6 months

Text

If BTSV doesn't mention how Spot literally killed people burn the whole movie tbh

Cause he opened a hole that destroyed over one wholecity block in Mumbattan.

The bridge he destroyed was over buildings - not water. That Alchemax collapse destroyed dozens of buildings.

All those buildings are high rise multistories. There were people in there.

And looking at Mumbattan's population density.. it was probably like a good hundred or more people in there.

Please for the love of all that is good treat Spot like the dangerous, selfish, vengeful murderer he is.

He's literally destroying a childs life despite the fact it literally gets him nothing at all.

If they let Spot off the hook after he basically opened a sink hole below hundreds of BROWN PEOPLE and then just move on it'll send the message that either the writers are 1) not at all paying attention to the story they're telling or 2) don't give a shit about Mumbattan.

I don't care if The Spot gets his identity back. I don't think I ever cared but now I care less.

He's a killer who is harassing a child for fun and revenge despite the fact Miles didn't even do anything. Not some secondary villain after Miguel.

The Spot shouldn't be redeemed, shouldn't be forgiven, and if they try I will be staging 'unpermitted political action' (riot) at Sony HQ.

Do NOT try to make me side with the murderous child hater.

And do not try to make me say that Miguel is the real threat here when The Spot says that he actively wants to commit murder on the innocent father of a 15 year old.

No good person would ever do that - period end of. Even before this shit The Spot was probably a horrible person.

Because there's is nothing on this Earth that could make me do a 180 and go 'actually it's completely fine to kill someone intentionally and purposely with my own actions for no other reason than to psychologically traumatize a child I dislike.'

Nothing. Not even losing my identity.

Say what you want but Miguel is infinitely more sympathetic than the Spot 1000x over and if you disagree I really wanna hear why you think a dude who genuinely thinks billions will die if he doesn't stop Miles is worse than a dude willing to kill just for his own validation.

I know we joke that Miguel hates Miles and wanted to hurt him from the get-go but he doesn't and he didn't.

The Spot is LITERALLY the one who hates Miles and wanted to hurt him from the get-go!!!!!!

#justice for Miguel #spiderman #spider man #atsv #marvel #across the spiderverse #miguel o hara #miguel o'hara #miguel ohara #the spot #jonathan ohnn

264 notes · View notes

threemouthedcanine · 1 year

Text

Im cursed with "caring way too much about the politics of shonen series" disease and this post makes my blood boil because I feel like 1) thats such a disingenuous way to frame the criticisms around FMA and 2) the series ends with mr war criminal becoming president and healing his eyes with the genocide gems while one of the survivors of said genocide fucks off somewhere and the military structure as well as greater imperialist structure is ultimately preserved and defended, with the past genocide framed as being an isolated incident of "bad" military with everything onwards being only "good" military.

The main message of FMA is that the military is a neutral force that is only imperialist in the hands of imperialists. If only kept within canon context it could be seen as a hopeful truth of that fictionalized world but as that message does not exist in a vacuum, it is worth analyzing and it deserves scrutiny.

Furthermore, to frame the people who aren't fawkin jiggy with the "what if war criminals... had feelings?" show as being oversensitive media illiterates just seems mean, for lack of a better word.

FMA might have imparted onto OP a great mindbending truth that some people who take part in genocides might have had personalities but as someone who also watched the show, read the manga, and adored it for years, the series DOES end with the war criminals going unpunished and largely rewarded for their crimes (again, mr war criminal becomes president, not to mention riza gravely telling edward that everyone who took part in the ishvalan genocide should be executed and literally nothing comes of that) NOT TO MENTION the whole subplot with Scar (interesting how the series has no problems questioning Scars violence and if it is justified/should be allowed while the military industrial complex is only criticized in terms of Who Should Be Allowed To Wield its Power) anyways this post is way 2 long so im ending it now if you disagree with me thats ok bye byeee

#talk tag #anime quarantine tag

405 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 3 months

Text

Incomplete vs. overshoot

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT in Seattle (Feb 26) with Neal Stephenson, then Portland, Phoenix and more!

You know the "horseshoe theory," right? "The far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

It's a theory that only makes sense if you don't know much about the right and the left and what each side wants out of politics.

Take women's suffrage. The early suffragists ("suffragettes" in the UK) were mostly interested in votes for affluent, white women – not women as a body. Today's left criticizes the suffrage movement on the basis that they didn't go far enough:

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage

Contrast that with Christian Dominionists – the cranks who think that embryos are people (though presumably not for the purpose of calculating a state's electoral college vote? Though it would be cool if presidential elections turned on which side of a state line a fertility clinic's chest-freezer rested on):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-alabama-ivf-ruling-was-influenced-christian-nationalism-on-the-media?tab=summary

These people are part of a far-right coalition that wants to abolish votes for women. As billionaire far-right bagman Peter Thiel wrote that he thought it was a mistake to let women vote at all:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

Superficially, there's some horseshoe theory action going on here. The left thinks the suffragists were wrong. The right thinks they were wrong, too. Therefore, the left and the right agree!

Well, they agree that the suffragists were wrong, but for opposite reasons – and far, far more importantly, they totally disagree about what they want. The right wants a world where no women can vote. The left wants a world where all women can vote. The idea that the right and the left agree on women's suffrage is, as the physicists say, "not even wrong."

It's the kind of wrong that can only be captured by citing scripture, specifically, A Fish Called Wanda, 6E, 79: "The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

Or take the New Deal. While the New Deal set its sites on liberating workers from precarity, abuse and corruption, the Dealers – like the suffragists – had huge gaps in their program, omitting people of color, indigenous people, women, queer people, etc. There are lots of leftists who criticize the New Deal on this basis: it didn't go far enough:

https://livingnewdeal.org/new-deal-and-race/

But for the past 40 years, America has seen a sustained, vicious assault on New Deal programs, from Social Security to Medicare to food stamps to labor rights to national parks, funded by billionaires who want to bring back the Gilded Age and turn us all into forelock-tugging plebs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/06/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom/

If you only view politics as a game of elementary school cliques, you might say that the left and the right are meeting again. The left says Roosevelt got it wrong with the New Deal (because he left out so many people). The right says FDR was wrong for doing the New Deal in the first place. Therefore, the left and the right agree, right?

Obviously wrong. Obviously. Again, the important thing is why the left and the right think the New Deal deserves criticism. The important thing is what the left and the right want. The left wants universal liberation. The right wants us all in economic chains. They do not agree.

It's not always just politics, either. Take the old, good internet. That was an internet defined by technological self-determination, a wild and wooly internet where there were few gatekeepers, where disfavored groups could find each other and make common cause, where users who were threatened by the greed of the shareholders behind big services could install blockers, mods, alternative clients and other "adversarial interoperability" tools that seized the means of computation.

Today's enshitternet – "five giant websites, filled with screenshots of the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) – is orders of magnitude more populous than that old, good internet. The enshitternet has billions of users, and they are legally – and technologically – prevented from taking any self-help measures when the owners of services change them to shift value from users to themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

The anti-enshittification movement rightly criticizes the old, good internet because it wasn't inclusive enough. It was a system almost exclusively hospitable to affluent, privileged people – the people who least needed the liberatory power of technology.

Likewise pro-enshittification monopolists – billionaires and their useful idiots – deplore the old, good internet because it gave its users too much power. For them, ad-blocking, alternative clients, mods, reverse-engineering and so on were all bugs, not features. For them, the enshitternet is great because businesses can literally criminalize taking action to protect yourself from their predatory impulses:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/20/benevolent-dictators/#felony-contempt-of-business-model

Superficially, it seems like the pro- and anti-enshittification forces agree – they both agree that the old, good internet was a mistake. But the difference that matters here is that the pro-enshittification side wants everyone mired in the enshitternet forever, living with what Jay Freeman calls "Felony contempt of business-model." By contrast, the disenshittification side wants a new, good internet that gives every user – not just a handful of techies – the power to decide how the digital systems they work use, and to be able to alter or reconfigure them to suit their own needs.

The horsehoe theory only makes sense if you don't take into account the beliefs and goals of each side. Politics aren't just a matter of who you agree with on a given issue – the real issue is what you're trying to accomplish.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/26/horsehoe-crab/#substantive-disagreement

#pluralistic #politics #suffrage #womens rights #new deal #civil rights #race #enshitternet #new good internet #old good internet

122 notes · View notes

alittledizzy · 2 months

Note

i liked your dnp stuff but the fact that you still feel comfortable posting dnf is actually insane. regardless of the details of the situation why would you even want to think about those men they're such creeps.

I'm happy to hear you liked my Dan and Phil stuff!

Unfortunately I think we're just going to disagree on the rest of your message. The fact that you think they're creeps indicates to me that you're being very truthful and you don't care to look into the details of anything, which we differ on. The details of the situation are actually very important to me, and not at all something I want to disregard.

Here's a fun detail: did you know the campaign against Dream, the root of all of this public opinion about him, started on Kiwi Farms? I'm not going to link it because it's a vile site, but if you've never heard of it you can google for verification. It's an alt right hotbed where the users orchestrate mass harassment and doxxing of anyone they don't like. This is not an insubstantial fan defense of Dream - like I said, you can literally google it. You can look at the thread on him, the over five hundred pages of it. You can see them planning how they'll take him down and spread the lies/rumors.

Can you guess why they might not like an openly queer, neurodivergent content creator in the gaming space? Their actual goal was to try and see if they could get him to kill himself. They set out to start enough rumors that would go mainstream and spread enough about him (doxxing him, his family, etc) and it worked, to an extent. He didn't kill himself, but they absolutely succeeded in making people who aren't familiar with him genuinely believe he is an awful person though none of the facts really stand up because his story is just like most other people's. He grew up in a conservative home and had some dodgy posts about politics from when he was fifteen. (Did you know Phil Lester did the same thing?) That's been warped into "Dream is a Trumper Republican." when he's absolutely not. He's not perfect, but he's literally just a human being who has had a growth trajectory that people want to ignore because it doesn't fit the "creepy" box they think he belongs in.

He was in an abusive relationship as a teenager (where he was abused) and he had some messy situationships with other people his age. Most people with a high school/teenage social experience also go through that. But Dream's actions at 17/18/19 are held on a pedestal compared to real life (not online) adult relationships instead of other messy teenagers. None of the allegations about him are true. They came from fans who couldn't provide any proof, and burner accounts. They were all dropped and recanted. But people don't want to hear him clear things up. They don't want to see that people admitted they were lying. It doesn't fit the narrative of creepy.

Anyway - like I said, I'm glad you liked my dnp stuff, and I wish you the best! But I'm just not someone who is going to distill people down into one specific category or drop anyone based on public opinion without looking at the facts myself and coming to my own conclusion.

#dreamwastaken #dt discourse

132 notes · View notes

supercantaloupe · 2 years

Text

i want to cry now lol

#sasha speaks #sorry for saying people shouldnt overstep their bounds and needlessly involve themselves in conflicts that have nothing to do with them.#sorry for adding a point that doesnt even contradict that of the original post which made op so mad they made multiple more posts #to call me a dumbass over it lol #<-- seething in rage #and i know they wouldn't be willing to talk it over politely. i fucking know they wouldn't.#if op of that post sees this you are welcome to message me to politely discuss further #but lbr theyve probably already blocked me and closed their mind off to the mere possibility of accepting that they might perhaps be #wrong or too harsh #gd forbid we listen to people we disagree with explain themselves.

2 notes · View notes

nightgoodomens · 4 months

Note

Shipping D/M is fine, cute even. It's disrespecting their partners that a lot of us draw the line at. Don't say that never happens either. I have seen it personally and have blocked more than one blog for it. Calling their relationships with their partners fake, or over, or nothing but baby trapping, or whatever else is beyond just cute fun shipping. It's actually hurtful and has led to things like Georgia being bullied off Twitter. That is taking things way too far.

Super long answer so I put it under read more, also if you’re not interested in these conversations then you can simply not click ‘read more’ and everybody wins.

You do realise that nobody is obliged to respect and love Georgia and Anna just because one is David’s wife and the other is Michael’s girlfriend?

There is this weird thing in this fandom that just because you’re Michael’s and/or David’s fan you must love and respect their partners and think their relationships are perfect. And that’s simply not true.

Georgia and Anna are separate people. I will judge them based on what they show and it would be healthy if others started to too, because while many are shocked that the ladies are not entitled to automatic respect and in extreme cases worship, I am surprised Georgia is called a Queen because she films David doing grocery shopping and Anna is called a Queen because she will post a picture of miserable as fuck Michael.

But you know what? It doesn’t bother me. They make people happy? This is what people think they deserve to be worshipped for? Cool. I might think it’s weird but I will let people be and I’d appreciate if they let me be for not thinking that the sun shines out of their asses. What I see from them make me not a fan of them but I hardly have any deeper feelings about the two of them, so I usually don’t talk about them.

People are allowed to theorise on celebs, their partners, and their relationships, based on what they see from public people who provide the material themselves. There are private couples out there who share nothing because they don’t want the public to theorise, but the people we talk about aren’t one of them.

There’s no terms and agreements that you are only allowed to squeak at what you see.

It goes both ways. If someone is allowed to comment positively, then someone else is allowed to comment negatively.

You are allowed to disagree with one and agree with another or form a completely different opinion.

The blogs that I read merely provide their thoughts on what they see. The shippers themselves discuss and sometimes even disagree with each other - politely. One thinks that. The other thinks something a bit different. Third one pops in with a completely different mindset. And that’s fine. They have a chat and that’s it. If it bothers anyone to see discussions about relationships then they can always block. But it looks like it only bothers when the discussions aren’t positive.

I block people being creepy about Crowley and Aziraphale and they’re fictional so I don’t blame anyone for blocking anyone else for whatever reason. It’s your space. Make it whatever you want it to be.

Now, Twitter is hell. It gave people the opportunity to talk with celebs. Some use it wisely. Some are slightly over the top, some are pure creeps, some are weird. If someone messages Georgia or Anna with their theory then they’re an idiot. That’s it.

I have never heard of Georgia being bullied off Twitter because of shippers so I can’t comment on that. The last time she was bullied off Twitter was because she searched her name on Twitter which she’s known for and then responded to a teenager who talked about her views (without tagging her) regarding the war. She decided to respond. People attacked. She decided to quit.

Now, I have two opinions on that - One, I think what happens on Twitter is insane. There is a reason why anybody with bigger following is refusing to post any opinions now because no matter what opinion they will give, it won’t satisfy everyone, and a mob of hate will follow. Two - barely a few months prior Georgia saw exactly what happened to Michael for sharing his opinion when he was actually asked for it, so I am not sure why she thought that fishing for trouble herself was a good idea. I guess she thought she’s above the treatment that Michael received which is interesting. Or she simply didn’t think. But considering she was posting photoshoots of herself moments later on Instagram fishing for compliments from fans… She survived the realisation that not all fans will always worship her.

Also - just a final point. It really isn’t evil or stupid to theorise and I’d urge people to have a bit of a read about PR relationships because it’s nothing new. Generally have a read about PR and you will understand why believing everything that you see on social media is simply foolish. Use common sense, trust your gut, question yourself and your views. There is a reason why celebrities have PR. There is a reason why there are contracts involved. If a bunch of people say something stinks here and they’re noticing patterns of PR/fake relationships/unhappy relationships etc… maybe have a read instead of having a meltdown about how dare they suggest this relationship isn’t an utmost perfection.

It’s good for your own development; learning behaviours and patterns to make it easier for yourself to spot people fooling you in personal relationships and in business relationships. Learn the signs of bullshit and toxicity, you will be surprised how much easier they can make your life and have you avoid shit. Be critical and use common sense. If something doesn’t click, there is a reason for it.

You see on social media how your friend bullshits people because they post a picture of the best boyfriend in the world while you know they are fighting three bloody times a day. You think celebs are truthful on social media?

Anyway this has gotten long - my point is: People are allowed to theorise but they’re stupid if they directly message the person about it.

#dingdong night went on for too long #oh well #hugs and kisses mwah mwah #NightGoodOmens answers #I had a tag for such posts so you can block them and I forgot fuuuuuck #Michael and David answers #was that it #I don’t knowwwww

88 notes · View notes